FALSE. The amount of hazardous waste generated from a particular vendor's process may be small, but a facility must count all their generated and stored hazardous waste to determine their generator class, including wastes in Satellite Accumulation Areas. This vendor, while trying to be helpful, is not taking into account the other processes of that facility.

The proper way to address a Notice of Violation (NOV) or Notice of Enforcement (NOE) is through technical staff, not attorneys. Many facilities receive an NOV or NOE and make the mistake of immediately engaging an attorney to make the response to the TCEQ or EPA. This is the worst mistake a facility can make. Both the TCEQ and EPA are more interested in correcting violations than escalating the case to a legal action. By immediately having the attorney respond to an NOV or NOE, the facility has automatically catapulted the case into the path of formal legal action, completely bypassing the extensive period of time to try to resolve or negotiate violations or concerns. If the technical staff (environmental staff or hired consultant) responds to the NOV or NOE, the door remains open for resolving the issues without formal legal actions. To reiterate, the agencies would rather have the violations corrected and measures implemented to describe how they will be prevented in the future, with an added statement including a signature from top management assuring aforementioned measures have been endorsed by upper management.

The agencies have implemented a protocol which requires that one of their staff attorneys be on all phone calls or in all meetings once a facility brings an attorney into those situations. Once on the "attorney" path, all doors for trying to resolve issues off the record is lost and the case is now on the fast-track to becoming an "Order" or a similar docket item.

Read about a case where this advice was not taken and the company paid dearly...

No - It is possible for both sets of regulations to apply at the site. As the lease holder and site operator, it is likely that most of the permits and registrations will be from the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC). Also, a leak or spill from the pit, including diesel derivatives, would be handled and reported per RRC regulations. However, a leak from vehicle equipment diesel saddle tanks or an on-site diesel fuel tank would not be exempt as it is not "uniquely associated with" exploration and production, thereby TCEQ regulations would apply. Considering the waste is diesel, the important thing to understand is that the exemption applies to how the waste was generated, as it applies to exploration and production.

No. It is possible for both sets of regulations to apply at the site. As the service provider, you bring vehicular equipment and chemicals to the drill site. Once used, the chemicals become exempt and can be disposed of under RRC regulations. However, if the chemicals have not yet been used, and their container develops a leak, the spill must be handled per TCEQ regulations. Chemicals brought on-site and used in the exploration or production steps do not become "exempt" from TCEQ hazardous waste regulations until they are used for the process directly.

Produced water is being treated on-site for re-use downhole for a frac(k)ing job. The water going back down the hole is "exempt" as it is not a waste of any sort. No permits are needed. However, if the treatment system can only handle a fraction of the produced water and the rest must be disposed of, either water must go down a RRC-permitted well, or can be sent to a TCEQ wastewater treatment plant. At no time can an on-site water treatment plant for producing frac reuse-quality water be released to a stream, creek, the ground, etc. The reason is that the Clean Water Act prohibits water from being discharged to the waters of the US (or State), which includes discharge directly to the ground based on percolation, without a permit which requires treatment to a prescribed level. In short, no temporary frac-water treatment plants have been invented that can clean produced water to a quality good enough to release from the drill pad site directly.

Permit sampling requirements or standard conditions can be negotiated with the issuing agency if the process is in the "Draft" permit stage. Many times these items show-up in a draft permit because TCEQ permit writers have standardized elements for certain industries. However, for conditions or parameters not applicable to the site, they can be negotiated off the permit, if you know how to present the case for removal. Remember, a permit should fit the activity at a site. Both the TCEQ and EPA expect that a facility will push-back on some things, but the facility must be able to demonstrate reasonable cause for doing it.

40 CFR §265.16 Personnel training. (a) (1) Facility personnel must successfully complete a program of classroom instruction or on-the-job training that teaches them to perform their duties in a way that ensures the facility's compliance with the requirements of this part. The owner or operator must ensure that this program includes all the elements described in the document required under paragraph (d) (3) of this section. (2) This program must be directed by a person trained in hazardous waste management procedures, and must include instruction which teaches facility personnel hazardous waste management procedures (including contingency plan implementation) relevant to the positions in which they are employed.

Legally, this could go either way - it could be the contractor's or your's (the facility). The EPA was asked for clarification for years, so they finally put out guidance that said if the generator is not decided upon ahead of time, then ultimately, generation of the waste falls to whomever hired the contractor. However, the best way to handle this situation is to state clearly who is responsible in a contract drawn-up between the parties before the work begins.